Find Nearby Plumbers In Tacoma, Washington

Mr. Rooter receives strong praise for individual technician professionalism, friendliness, and technical knowledge — with named techs like Dustin, Tanner, Nathan, and Zach repeatedly highlighted for courtesy and competence. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple reviewers across different time periods describe charges as steep, opaque, or outright deceptive, including one detailed account of billing fraud, a court judgment against the company, and several instances of quotes far exceeding competitors. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed same-day and efficiently, but there are notable failures including a $1,200 repair that did not fix the problem, a $3,000+ job that created a new water outage, a paid drain clearing that left the line still blocked, and a sewer job with poor communication and unfinished driveway restoration. Experience scores moderately well based on explicit mentions of knowledgeable diagnostics and skilled workmanship, but is tempered by at least two cases where technicians misdiagnosed problems or refused to explore simpler solutions that competitors later executed successfully.

• 12 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews with no date cannot be weighted for recency. A meaningful portion of negative reviews are dated 2011–2018, but negative patterns (pricing complaints, incomplete work, billing disputes) persist into 2023–2025, suggesting systemic rather than historical issues.
• Pricing dimension is heavily flagged: multiple independent reviewers describe being quoted 2–5x what competitors charged for identical work. One reviewer won a small claims court judgment. One reviewer described a technician offering to work 'under the table.' These are serious red flags beyond mere expensiveness.
• Some positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Awesome service thank you', 'Very good', 'Fast and reliable service') with no specifics, which limits their evidentiary value. However, enough named-technician and detail-rich positive reviews exist to avoid a fake review flag.
• One review (2020) describes work beginning without customer consent after a signed estimate with a 3-day cancellation clause — a potential consumer protection violation.
• The gap between highly positive individual technician reviews and deeply negative billing/completion reviews suggests inconsistent quality control and pricing practices at the organizational level rather than uniform service failure.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to volume of mentions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of pricing opacity, billing disputes, and incomplete work that persist across multiple years and are not offset by the volume of positive technician-level reviews.

B&R Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who frequently praise responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill — with multiple named technicians (Michael, Ron, Alex, Kevin) receiving specific commendations. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by several credible negative reviews citing serious concerns: two no-show incidents, one rude and incomplete repair job, a $5,363 water heater charge that the technician himself could not justify, a $1,400 charge for roughly 1.5 hours of work and ~$200 in parts, and a reported $300 unexplained overcharge on a quoted job. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with a notable split between customers who felt they received great value and others who felt significantly overcharged. Project completion is moderately strong but is tempered by the no-show pattern and one instance of incomplete repair work where follow-up calls went unanswered.

• 14 reviews contain no text at all (only a rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these blank reviews inflate the visible star average without providing usable evidence.
• Several reviews from 2021 appear to be near-duplicates: two reviews describe an almost identical scenario involving Alex finding a leak between the house and street, fixing a waste line, and saving the customer ~$6,000. This may indicate a duplicated or manipulated review submission.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2024-06-09', '2023-06-10', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', and '2019-06-11' with identical timestamps suggests possible batch imports or platform migration artifacts rather than organic review dates — treat these with moderate caution.
• The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2020–2024, which is positive for recency. However, negative reviews span multiple years (2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023), suggesting pricing and professionalism issues are not isolated incidents.
• Pricing complaints are serious and specific: one customer cited $5,363 for a water heater, another cited $1,400 for ~1.5 hours of labor and ~$200 in parts, and a third cited an unjustified $300 overcharge above a quoted range. These are not vague complaints and meaningfully reduce confidence in fair pricing.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, though prospective customers should weigh the specific and recurring pricing complaints seriously before engaging this contractor for larger jobs.

Olympic Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising Andrew's responsiveness, honesty, fair pricing, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing jobs. However, several credible negative reviews meaningfully drag down the score: one reviewer documented an improper plumbing connection followed by complete failure to return multiple calls to remedy the mistake, which is a serious project completion and professionalism failure. Additional negative reviews cite no call-backs, rude behavior when asked to wear a mask, and a quote that was reportedly double the competition. The project completion dimension is the most penalized, as the abandoned callback situation and the order-parts-then-disappear complaint represent genuine follow-through failures. Pricing scores moderately well overall but is tempered by the one outlier complaint of an excessively high quote.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Recently I woke up to find the house had no water...' appears twice with different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-01-21). One instance was excluded from scoring as a likely duplicate submission.
• THREE REVIEWS HAVE NO TEXT CONTENT (ratings only: two 5-star, one 2-star dated 2019). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed reviews are from 2013–2021. Only 4 reviews with substantive text are from the past 12 months (2024–2025), limiting confidence in current performance. The business may have changed in quality or staffing since older reviews were written.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (LOW LEVEL): One 5-star review (2023-06-10) appears to be a retraction of a mistakenly placed negative review rather than a genuine service experience. It was excluded from dimension scoring. Generic praise reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Thank you for the amazing service!!') were treated as low-signal.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT FLAG: One 2-star review (2021-03-29) documents a confirmed workmanship error (improper pipe connection bypassing filtration) combined with repeated failure to return calls and remedy the issue. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure and was weighted heavily in scoring.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least three separate reviews across different years (2016, 2017, 2021) cite failure to return calls or follow up. This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident, and negatively impacts professionalism and project completion scores.

The WW Score of 72.1 is based on a reasonable volume of reviews spanning over a decade, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of most reviews, a recurring pattern of responsiveness failures, at least one documented workmanship-and-abandonment incident, and limited recent data to confirm whether current service quality matches the contractor's best historical performance.

Bob of BBC Plumbing earns strong praise across the majority of reviews for responsiveness, fair pricing, and solid workmanship — many customers highlight same-day or next-morning availability, reasonable charges, and quality repairs on a wide range of plumbing issues. However, the review pool contains several serious negative incidents that meaningfully drag down the scores: two reviewers report Bob making appointments and simply not showing up without any call or explanation, one reviewer describes a significant pricing dispute where the final bill was 60% over the verbal estimate and Bob became defensive and unprofessional when questioned, and one reviewer alleges Bob accepted $5,000 for a commercial job, abandoned the work mid-project, and never returned — with the completed portion found to be non-code-compliant. These are not minor complaints; they represent patterns of unreliability and, in one case, a potentially serious breach of trust. Pricing scores are tempered by the one documented overcharge dispute despite the many positive pricing mentions. Project completion scores are significantly penalized due to the no-show incidents and the alleged job abandonment.

• SERIOUS FLAG — One reviewer (2017-06-06) alleges Bob accepted $5,000 for a commercial job, abandoned the site mid-project without returning, and the work completed was found to be non-code-compliant by a subsequent contractor. This is an extreme allegation that, if accurate, represents fraud and gross negligence.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN — Two separate reviewers (2019-04-29 and 2018-07-10) report Bob made appointments and failed to show up or call. This is a recurring reliability issue, not an isolated incident.
• PRICING DISPUTE — One reviewer (2018-09-14) documents a verbal estimate of $200–$300 that resulted in a $484 bill, with Bob becoming defensive and unprofessional when questioned. This directly contradicts the many positive pricing reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE — The majority of reviews are from 2017–2022, with the most recent being July 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date) are present, meaning current performance cannot be confirmed.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY — The large volume of highly positive, enthusiastic 5-star reviews with no specifics on pricing or workmanship details in some cases warrants mild scrutiny, though most positive reviews do include specific job details and are likely genuine. No strong fake review pattern detected, but the contrast between glowing positives and serious negatives is notable.
• COMMERCIAL WORK RISK — The alleged $5,000 commercial job abandonment suggests Bob may be less reliable or capable on larger or commercial-scale projects compared to small residential repairs.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving the score statistical grounding, but the presence of multiple serious negative incidents — including alleged job abandonment, repeated no-shows, and a documented pricing dispute — means prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate-confidence indicator and exercise caution, particularly for larger or commercial projects.

My PhD Services earns strong praise across the majority of reviews for professionalism, technical knowledge, and responsiveness — particularly from technicians Ray and Jason, who are repeatedly described as friendly, punctual, knowledgeable, and thorough. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting fair costs and even no-charge visits for minor diagnostics. However, four substantive negative reviews significantly drag down the project completion and professionalism scores: one details an improperly installed boiler with an unpermitted installation and complete communication breakdown; another describes a plumber leaving a job worse than found and then refusing to return; a third cites a technician who promised a callback and never showed; and a fourth flags vague but pointed dissatisfaction with attention to detail. These are not minor complaints — they involve alleged unlicensed work, abandoned jobs, and hostile customer service interactions, which must be weighted seriously against the otherwise positive pattern.

• Four negative reviews (ratings of 1.0) describe serious failures: abandoned work, alleged unpermitted/unlicensed installations, a technician who never returned after promising to, and a job left in worse condition than found — these are material red flags for project completion and professionalism.
• The most detailed negative review (2019-12-04) alleges the company may have performed work outside their licensed scope and failed to pull required permits, which if accurate represents a significant legal and safety concern.
• A second negative review (2016-11-23) describes the plumber leaving mid-job with the leak worsened, water damage to the home, and the company subsequently refusing to return or waive their fee — only resolved via the home warranty company.
• A third negative review (2019-04-12) specifically calls out a technician for making promises and not following through — a direct project completion failure.
• Most positive reviews are older than 12 months (many from 2016–2019), with only one review from the past 12 months (2023). Recency of positive feedback is limited, reducing confidence that current service quality matches historical praise.
• Several positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'great service,' 'professional and friendly') with limited specifics, though not at a level that conclusively suggests fake reviews. No identical phrasing patterns detected.

This WW Score is based on a reasonable volume of reviews (24) and carries HIGH data confidence, but the presence of four serious negative reviews — including allegations of unlicensed work, abandoned jobs, and hostile communication — means the score should be treated with caution, and prospective customers should independently verify licensing and permit compliance before hiring.

2 Sons Plumbing receives strong praise for the technical skill and professionalism of individual technicians — names like Davie, Steven, Chad, John, and James appear repeatedly with genuine, specific commendations — which drives a respectable experience score. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple reviewers explicitly describe feeling overcharged, encountering inflated quotes, or discovering they paid substantially more than competitors for equivalent work, pulling the price-friendly score down considerably. Project completion is mixed: several jobs were resolved well and efficiently, but there are notable failures including one instance of a disconnected drain pipe left unrepaired after an estimate visit, a clogged drain made worse rather than better, a missed appointment with no proactive communication, and a deceptive contract-signing incident. Professionalism scores moderately well on the strength of courteous technicians and responsive scheduling, but is tempered by billing disputes, a no-show, and at least one instance of a technician not honoring an advertised coupon. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled and personable field staff undermined by inconsistent business practices and pricing transparency issues.

• PRICING CONCERN: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe overcharging, inflated quotes, or prices significantly higher than competitors. This is a statistically meaningful pattern across the review set and is not isolated.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / NEGLIGENCE: One reviewer (1-star, 2023-02-02) reports that a technician disconnected a drain pipe during an estimate visit and left without reconnecting it, potentially causing water damage to new cabinetry. This is a serious workmanship and liability concern.
• DECEPTIVE BILLING PRACTICE: One reviewer (3-star, 2019-05-26) describes being misled into signing a payment contract under the impression they were signing only for property access authorization, followed by a collections threat. The manager later issued a refund, suggesting the company acknowledged the issue.
• FAILED SERVICE DELIVERY: One reviewer (1-star, 2019-12-05) paid $450 for a drain clearing that made the blockage worse, requiring a second company to fix the problem the following day.
• MISSED APPOINTMENT: One reviewer (1-star, 2020-06-09) reports the company cancelled a scheduled appointment with only 30 minutes notice, citing an emergency, with no proactive communication.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2019 to 2024. Only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (late 2023 to late 2024). The majority of reviews are 2–5 years old. Current performance may differ from what this review set reflects.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews vary meaningfully in tone, detail, rating, and named technicians. Language is not repetitive or templated. No fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it reasonable statistical grounding, but the score should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of most reviews, a clear and recurring pricing complaint pattern, and at least two serious incidents involving deceptive or negligent conduct that were only partially resolved.